Did anyone take a count of how many times Noot and Robamney didn't answer the questions they were asked?

I focus more so on Paul's words of wisdom ,, he really seems alot more educated and intelligent than the others on pretty much everything.

As far as i can tell newt and romney are both bad at denying what they have done in the past and just try to dig up dirt on each other but its equal for both, santorum is just a angry at world idiot thinking he can feel like a big tough guy for the first time in his life if he gets elected


In all honesty i think wed all be better off with Paul than any of them, id rather have obama if it were between him or santorum, romney, newt i dunno he still seems too stupid and immoral to be president.

I am supporting Newt 100%!

I Actually think 'none of your business' should be a more accepted answer when people are asked about their personal business. May have been a good strategy for Clinton too.

Although, (regarding Newt), I do understand the RELEVANCE of asking about the hypocrisy of public scrutinizing of a colleague for an affair while carrying on one himself,,,unfortunately, the question wasnt phrased that way and backfired,,,

Awe, crap..

Did I miss that?

Shoot!

Darn!

Stupid alarm...

>.>

Ron Paul Defines Conservatism at Tonight’s Debate

The last question asked by the NBC moderators tonight was about how each of the candidates have advanced conservatism. Mitt Romney talked about his business experience. Newt Gingrich attempted to align himself with Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Rick Santorum did a good job in explaining how Mitt and Newt’s support for individual healthcare mandates, TARP and cap-and-trade calls into question both men’s conservative credentials.

Ron Paul pointed out that conservatism is supposed to mean smaller government and more liberty. Paul then suggested that Republicans have completely lost sight of this definition. He’s right.

Romney, Gingrich and Santorum’s records are all riddled with support for bigger government (Santorum’s own offenses include supporting Medicare Plan D and No Child Left Behind, for starters) and all three have been willing to sacrifice constitutional liberties in the name of “security.” The Patriot Act, support for indefinite detention and other anti-4th Amendment measures are prime examples, but so are the amount of money every candidate but Paul is willing to spend overseas in the name of “security.”

The reason the other candidates can’t find big government offenses in Paul’s record is because their aren’t any. The reason the other candidates can’t offer any spending cuts–much less the $1 trillion Paul offers–is because they’ve resigned themselves to the idea that America’s foreign policy status quo must remain intact. No questions. No reassessment. No cost/benefit analyses. All but Paul want more of the same.

Every candidate except Paul offers zero cuts. Every candidate except Paul consistently gives up more of our constitutional liberties.

If conservatism truly means smaller government and more liberty, then only one conservative stood on that debate stage tonight.

...why do you all even take these debates seriously?

They all lie.

Even if they didn't.

They have no true 'power'.

Almost like the Queen of England..

..they're just a figurehead.

Knowledge is power. The ability to differientiate between fact and BS is wisdom. To have either requires input.

The debates are sponsored and moderated by biased (though they want you to believe otherwise....some of the BS factor) news agencies, or other agenda motivated, for profit, sources.

They offer much insite if watched with a critical eye. The direction of the questions to certain candidates can speak volumes.

The moderators direct questioning, knowing in advance where they will lead....making one or another candidate "appear" to be the best choice (their choice) and the one who should get your vote.

It's like having your child in a spelling bee, and you are the one issuing the word each must spell.

To get info on Dr Paul (other than hit pieces) one has to go to the internet because the MSM rarely offers him any "coverage", while there are 100's of articles on the others every day flooding the press. More of a "black out" than a bias, but definately a biased stance.

Paul is NOT news worthy. He never changes his views, has no real dirt to dig up for news fodder, so the only things they cover on Dr Paul are sound bytes (usually taken out of context), their spin on something he said or did (usually the complete opposite of his message), and that better promotes their "for profit" agenda.

The debates are input, it is what you take from them that builds knowledge, it is the ability to "see and decypher" the truth learned in them that is wisdom.

You seem to have been defeated by the propoganda machine from your statement. For many years we HAVE had a "figurehead" in power because many suffer that same defeat by the media.

Ron Paul IS change! NOT a figurehead, but someone who WILL try to make a difference, restore faith and honor, the constitutional rule of law, and freedom back to AMERICA! It is sad it has taken so long for his message to become popular.

You're young.... still learning.....NEVER give up on knowledge and you will grow wiser with age, not more controlled.

Change.

I've heard that so much in my short 30 years of life.

I've never actually seen it, only heard them talk about it.

Dr. Paul, as you call him, could swear to me he could resurrect Jesus Christ himself, but if he can't get the machine controlled Senate to agree with him, he has no true power, just word that hold no action.

I've seen Obama come up with some decent ideas and he was rejected just because they wanted to reject him. I saw the same with Clinton, and even Bush Sr. (I hate the Bushes btw).

The whole system is a machine. A major majority of any votes coming out of any state are, in actuality, from the government itself (whether they work for it or are actually more heavily into the actual political field). In basic training for the police force, I was informed I should vote for such-and-such cause he would ultimately aid the police; yet, same situation, same election for crying out loud; I leave the police squad and instead join the national guard. There, my recruiter said to vote for a different such-and-such because he was for the military.

On a massive scale, that just proved to me why voting is BS. 5,000 cops are being swayed to vote for one guy because of one thing. 12,000 soldiers are being swayed to vote for one guy for an entirely different reason; yet neither reason is a justifiable source to aid the society, the people, and the average Joe.

It's all a smoke screen.

Our pay rates drop, government employee rates rise.

We're supposedly in a recession, yet, there's not a single politician who can't afford six vacations a year that cost almost a million in total each time.

All for what exactly? What exactly do they protect me from?

First reaction, foreign nations, right?

Well, guess what, it's the Government who themselves has created so much spite from these terrorists; not us. They believe that we are high and mighty and like the God of nations.

So.. my question is.

How am I a victim of a propaganda machine when, in fact, I don't even believe the media, period. My observation comes specifically off experiences, off watching, listening, and observing. I have never, not once, seen anything to alter my frame of my mind, one way, or the other.

Democracy would and could be a great and beautiful thing..

...if only I could see how it actually works.

The legislative branch gets its power from the people. They don't want us to believe that, but they do!

Look at the PIPA and SOPA bill that was before congress. The voice of the people stopped, at least delayed, it until it could be rewritten to protect against infringements of our basic 1st amendment rights.

The voice of the people controls congress in reality, and if RP were elected, just like the power of Owe-Bummer to destroy our constitutional rights, RP would have the power to regain them.

The reason you are disenchanted is because it has NOT been that way in your lifetime. I have seen good times, and the bad is blaringly apparent in this time!

The President has a bully pulpit to speak from. RP CAN MAKE CHANGES!

Oshite was elected without any notable ability other than being a good orator.... he has done nothing towards making the changes he promised, he was never meant to. He was sold to us by the bankers and the MSM....just like Shrub was!

"Don't be part of a problem when you can be part of a solution".

Good words to live by. Nobody is going to give you freedom, rights, or opportunity. They must be earned! If you say you want them, you must fight for them.

All politicos are not corrupt, just many in power are, and they influence the jounior members.

RP has a net worth of $1M, but it is in gold investments he has made over the years, not in cash assets like the others. He lives solely on his income from his investmentments, retirement accts (from his private practice....he refused the congressional retirement because it was at the expence of taxpayers.....something he disaproves of!).

If elected he will reduce the Presidential salary to the level of the average income earner....$40,000..... because he is able to live within his personal means.

Santorum and Gingrinch both became millionaires while serving in congress..... figure that one out.....RP hasn't!

Its easy to change things when your not on the take from business, you owe nobody so there is no back scratching going on. Obamney, Robamney or the Grich gets in it will be the same old shitt and the economy will continue to be talked about and that's about it.

I didn't hear what's his face ask about personal issues, the questions were on business and they gave the typical republican response which was to divert away from the question.

Im talking about the debate in which the first question was about newts marriages,,,,

I wouldnt vote newt in a million years, but I found its only relevance was to compare his actions privately to his actions in public office (criticizing Clinton for his affair), but the way they worded said nothing about his political actions at all